Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Lord Empey Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 15th July 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Empey]

12: Clause 3, page 3, line 39, at end insert—
“( ) After making a report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must publish a report on or before 10 September 2019 on progress on the establishment of a Renewable Heat Incentive Hardship Unit in the Department for the Economy.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, the Committee will see that I have a number of issues in Amendments 12 to 16. I have to say—I have said this to the Minister before—that I believe that this Bill, which was set out to be a relatively simple exercise, has now transformed itself into something totally different. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, described it as a Christmas tree, so I take the view that if people at the other end are entitled to put baubles on the Christmas tree, I can put tinsel on it. Let us be under no illusion. Once the dam is breached, people will flow through with their own ideas and are perfectly entitled to do it. I have chosen a number of things because I believe they are very important to the people of Northern Ireland. Most of them are not being addressed, yet people are in significant difficulty as a result.

I will start with Amendment 12. The RHI has proven to be one of the most significant developments in Northern Ireland in recent years. It was ostensibly the reason Sinn Féin collapsed the Executive in 2017. I have never believed that that was the only reason. Nevertheless, it is on paper as the reason. As we discovered when dealing with rates and the renewable heat incentive in March, many people are in great distress as a result.

After we had discussed things, the Minister promised that a unit would be established within the Department for the Economy to look at the individual circumstances of everybody who was at risk and at a loss as a result of the change in the premiums being paid for the use of the boilers. It appears to me that the department has taken an exceptionally narrow view of what that means and is confining itself to European Union rules stipulating that it could provide loans at commercial rates for up to six months and that would probably be as far as it could go. That is no use to the people.

In the debate earlier, before the dinner-break business, people referred to undertakings that the Government gave. In this particular case, the relevant Minister at the time appealed to the banks in writing for them to lend to people who were going to operate these boilers. The banks responded to the Minister, loaning money on the undertaking that the rights were being grandfathered and there was a 12% return. Some people got these boilers, calculated the income that they had received from them over the 20 years of the scheme, put that into business plans and perhaps went on to borrow money for other related projects, such as additional chicken houses and so on. They now find that the premiums they are in receipt of are a mere fraction of those they had put into their business plans and were promised by the Stormont Government at that time. They also find themselves in the bizarre situation that the Republic of Ireland is about to introduce a similar scheme for 15 years, while the scheme that exists here, which pre-dated the Northern Ireland version, will be continuing for its 20-year period. So the competitiveness for the person using one of those boilers in Northern Ireland compared with in the Republic or the rest of the United Kingdom is totally destroyed. I say to the Minister that this requires urgent action, and the action so far flagged up by the Department for the Economy is totally inadequate.

I come now to Amendment 13. We have all agreed that the welfare system was in urgent need of reform. It was unwieldy, far too complicated and, most important, it was not properly supporting people into work. Yet, instead of simplifying the overall benefits system, the reforms made it even more difficult, with new layers of complexity and added delay. In 2015, the local political parties in Northern Ireland agreed that a package of measures was required. This included support for people moving from DLA to PIP, or perhaps from DLA to nothing at all, as well as many other issues, such as additional support for the independent advice sector. One of the most important mitigations was in relation to the social sector size criteria. While we can all accept the principle behind families being allocated homes that most reflect their needs, the reality in Northern Ireland did not—and, shamefully, still does not—have the stock to reflect modern demand; in other words, there are insufficient homes for single people or small families.

If, as is so greatly feared, the current mitigations expire next March and nothing is there to replace them, many thousands of local families face the prospect of serious financial hardship. Let us take the bedroom tax alone: a massive 34,000 households would lose support valued at £22 million per annum. I repeat: this is not because people are refusing to downsize; it is because there are literally not the houses for people to downsize to. It is as simple as that. There have been talks between the parties of Northern Ireland in recent months on the issue of future mitigation. I am told that they have gone quite well so far, yet the Department for Communities in Belfast has repeatedly said that decisions on the provision of any future support from April next year can be a matter only for incoming Ministers. That is why I have tabled this amendment and put the realistic timeframe of December on it.

On Amendment 15, the Minister will be aware that we have a serious problem with suicide in Northern Ireland. It is at the highest level in the whole of the United Kingdom. Troubles-related issues may be part of it; indeed, I have no doubt that that is the case. But we are the only UK region without a current mental health strategy and our funding per capita for mental health services is far below the UK average. We have this very difficult situation, yet the Protect Life 2 strategy has been sitting on the shelf for over two years. We are talking about individual lives; primarily the victims are young men. I believe there is widespread support among the political parties in Belfast to see this strategy taken off the shelf. I think this was referred to last week by other colleagues here and that everybody is on the same hymn sheet. At the end of the day, however, the strategy is still sitting there, nothing is happening and, without it, the departments are not in a position to take decisions. The advice that the parties have been given by the Civil Service is correct: this requires a Minister to take a decision, and that is not happening.

Amendment 14 is about libel legislation in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Black, has tabled a more specific amendment that will be dealt with later, so I shall not go into detail. Basically, we are on the same page, but I was looking to try to give some kind of kick-start to this. We have fallen far behind the rest of the country, and I support what the noble Lord will propose at a later stage.

On Amendment 16, I have described our situation with health time and time again. On Second Reading I referred to the latest report from the Nuffield Trust, backed up by Professor Deirdre Heenan of Ulster University, its co-author. The statistics are sobering. Upwards of 120,000 people out of a population of 1.8 million are waiting for more than a year for a consultant-led appointment. Every target is being missed: if the target is 95%, most of the percentages are in the low 60s. We are not close to other regions in the rest of the United Kingdom, and the capacity of the service to meet the demand from the public is simply not there.

We are flying in nurses from Great Britain. Their air fare is paid, their accommodation and meals are paid, and their hourly pay is grossly above that of the ordinary nurses on the wards. Although the agency nurses do a good job and we could not survive without them, this cannot be a sensible or economic way forward. When people are flying in and out, they are not in a position to open up a relationship with a patient or understand that patient. Moreover, different systems operate in different trusts. This is an inefficient and highly expensive way of providing a service.

In our earlier debates we talked about life. I did not get into the argument about abortion, although I have my own views on it—but we understand that the fundamental thing is a respect for life, and choices. Yet we know that the way in which the service is being delivered in part of our own country is at such a level that life is being affected. If a cancer patient waits weeks and months for an appointment, that directly affects their chances of survival. In diagnosis time is of the essence, as many noble Lords will know.

Our situation is out of control, and all the projections are that it is getting progressively worse. Every quarter the figures are worse than those for the quarter before. How many times do we have to learn that? The fact is that politics are being put before the welfare of hundreds of thousands of our citizens. None of us knows how often we shall have to depend on the health service. Not one of us in this Chamber knows how we shall be placed. Those figures represent mothers, fathers, sons and daughters; they are real people, and they are suffering because the service is not delivering.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

I commend the noble Lord for consistently raising this subject, and for the passion with which he has done so. To support his case, does he agree that there is also a serious problem of lack of childcare, and the dreadful waiting times for children in the NHS in Northern Ireland?

[Lord Empey]

The noble Lord is correct. All our services are suffering, not through any lack of attention, or any attempt on anybody’s part not to provide a good service, but because people are overwhelmed. Decisions that were taken in the Treasury some years ago affecting the position of consultants’ pensions and other things are now impacting seriously on waiting lists because a lot of those consultants are absenting themselves. There is a perverse situation that the more work there is, the more they are making a liability for themselves. These are the sorts of things that are happening.

Leaving aside the politics of it—I do not want to see direct rule; I spent years of my life trying to see Stormont get going, accompanied by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, and other Members who are in the House today, and we want to see it work—there is a humanitarian issue at the back of all this. People are hurting, and the longer the prevarication is allowed to persist, the greater the risk to individuals. The truth of the matter is that people will die on these waiting lists—we have to be honest about this—and collectively we are standing around watching this. I suspect that that is not a sustainable position for any of us to keep. It is in those circumstances that I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Empey]

I am grateful to the Minister for his undertakings. I am also grateful to noble Lords on all sides for their broad support for these measures. It was an omission on my part not to have included the point raised by noble Lord, Lord Hain: I should, on reflection, have included that, but I appreciate that the Minister has given us an undertaking. On the basis of what the Minister has promised, I know it will require a lot of work over the next number of weeks—that is the challenge—but at the end of the day I think it will be useful work. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that by proposing and preparing reports we will ensure that, in the event that the Assembly returns, it will have something to work with. Because, let us be honest, the Minister’s department does not, on its own, have the capacity to deal with all this: it will have to rely heavily on the Civil Service in Belfast, which does know and is dealing with this on a daily basis, to have input into the reports. That information could be very useful to an incoming Assembly and incoming Ministers in the relevant departments. So procedurally, if he is going to do this, I am happy to accept his assurance and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 12 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I support with as much strength as I can the amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and his colleagues in speaking to it. He has argued the case with unparalleled eloquence and persistence. I add my thanks to the Minister for the care that he has constantly given to this matter.

I want to pick up on a point mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Cormack: the absence of nationalist representation in our Parliament. I completely accept that that has been given sharper relief by the absence of the SDLP from the other place. I am chair of the independent House of Lords Appointments Commission referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and I am well aware of the problem. He is aware of how complicated and difficult it is and of the pressures involved in sorting it out, but I wanted to reassure him that I am well aware of this complex and difficult problem. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that I understand that it is thrown into sharper relief by the absence of the SDLP from the other place.

[Lord Empey]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hain, on his persistence in this matter. I am also encouraged that the Minister said last week at Second Reading that there would be no risk of a person receiving a pension if an act was carried out by his or her own hand. The criminal injuries legislation, if applied to this, would ensure that that did not happen. However, there is perhaps a risk with people’s relatives. Whatever we do, let us be absolutely clear that the language of the legislation clearly reflects Parliament’s intention; otherwise, somebody will JR the thing and the whole process will become discredited. That is my major worry. With that qualification, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hain.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to endorse and thank my noble friend Lord Hain and his supporters for bringing this forward. As he mentioned, of all the posts I ever had in government, my role as a victims Minister in Northern Ireland was the one that stayed with me and affected me the most. The euphemistically named Troubles left a legacy of not just physical pain but mental pain and anguish that affects later generations and both sides of the community, as we have heard. A lot of people were caught up in things that they knew nothing about. I remember talking to one man about his experiences. Every year, a paper would print a photograph of a bus that had been wrecked in a bombing. His father had died on that bus, yet nobody thought of the pain it caused him to see that photograph printed on the anniversary year after year.

This is not just about the financial need people are in. It also gives recognition to those victims and survivors who will receive a pension and those who will not but who recognise how important it is that the suffering and trauma experienced by victims over many years has been recognised. This is also about health. Many have not undertaken the employment they could have done, which had a financial knock-on effect. This is long overdue. I am sure there is more that can be done over time for those who have survived, but I think this is a really important step. I am encouraged that we are all anticipating a very positive response from the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Morrow]

My Lords, I intend to be brief on this because I will keep before me what has been said in the debate on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hain. I recognise that much of what was said compares with what I hope to say.

The definition of a victim has been a matter of great angst in Northern Ireland since its inception. Consideration of government proposals in the past has been coloured by the dissatisfaction people feel over an unfair definition of a victim. This has been a running sore for some 13 years. We have met many individual victims and several groups representing victims’ organisations. The victim definition is repeatedly raised with us as their key issue.

We consider the 2006 definition of a victim and survivor to be unacceptable, unfair and downright insulting. In our view, there is a clear distinction in law between a terrorist perpetrator and their innocent victim. To equate the two is morally wrong and totally indefensible. We have previously tabled legislative proposals to change the definition of a victim, but to no avail at this stage. We believe the Government should bring forward plans now to change the definition of a victim so that there is a clear distinction between perpetrators and victims. In any civilised society, it cannot be right that victims and perpetrators are treated as equals. We believe that this could improve the existing climate and context regarding consideration of the past and legacy proposals.

The Secretary of State wrote in the foreword of the legacy consultation document:

“A Conservative Government will reject any attempts to rewrite the history of the past that seeks to justify or legitimise republican or loyalist terrorism or which seeks to displace responsibility from the people who perpetrated acts of terrorism”.


A perpetrator of an unlawful act cannot at the same time be a victim of the act they have perpetrated. Someone who pulled a trigger or planted a bomb should not be treated in the same manner as their innocent victims. This matter is fundamental to victims’ views. In our engagement with a number of victims’ organisations, we have been struck by extremely powerful testimony illustrating the depth and rawness of hurt and insult they feel at their loved ones being placed in the same category as terrorist perpetrators.

The DUP has a proud record on victims and legacy issues. In government, we quadrupled funding for victims. We have stood against a rewriting of our history and efforts to introduce an amnesty. Current arrangements for dealing with the past are utterly unacceptable. There is a clear imbalance, and continuation of the status quo will lead to further rewriting of the narrative of the Troubles. Innocent victims are not seeing progress on investigations into the murder of their loved ones. I beg to move.

[Lord Empey]

My Lords, I think the exchanges during the debate on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, have the seeds of a solution within them. I would be supportive of that. He made the distinction between the provision of services and pensions for people who have been victims, so we understand that there is an issue there, but the whole question of legacy is still unresolved. There are still proposals out there, including the historical inquiries unit and other ideas that have been brought forward, which could threaten and help to rewrite the history, as has been referred to. But I believe from the exchange we had earlier that we are close to a form of words to find an acceptable solution to all of this that everybody can be comfortable with and move forward on. I certainly hope that that can be achieved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lexden]

My Lords, I strongly support this amendment, which brings back to your Lordships’ House an issue of the first importance. Shortly after the passage of the Defamation Act 2013, I instigated a debate in Grand Committee about the overwhelming case for extending it to Ulster. I later brought forward probing amendments to a Northern Ireland Bill.

The Government at that time agreed that Northern Ireland ought to enjoy the benefits of the 2013 Act and deprecated the Province’s exclusion. It meant that, for the first time in our history, it would have a different libel law from England and Wales. Acute dissatisfaction was expressed across the House that the Northern Ireland Executive—which was then in being—failed to provide any explanation of their opposition to the incorporation of the 2013 Act in Northern Ireland. The Government pressed for an explanation but received none.

When I withdrew my probing amendment in 2014, I asked the Government what further action they would take if the Northern Ireland Executive failed to pursue this matter properly. Sadly, Ministers have been unable to give me any clear reply to that question since then. The issue seems to have slipped from the Northern Ireland Office’s sight. I am glad that it has again been given the prominence it deserves through this amendment.

[Lord Empey]

My Lords, the Minister kindly accepted the amendment I proposed on this matter earlier. I fully accept that we were not co-ordinating on it. I support the proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Black. He knows that and we have talked about this before—he has been to Belfast. He has explained exactly what is at stake, in a very coherent contribution. It is a mystery why this progress has been so slow, but that is where we are. I find myself in total agreement with his contribution.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I have very few remarks to make in response to my noble friend, but I thank him for his long speech. There is no doubt that defamation law in Northern Ireland does not reflect today’s digital age. To echo my noble friend’s words, reform is indeed needed. The issues at stake here hit the very heart of the relationship between citizens, media and the state. It is important to deliver protections in the field of freedom of expression.

My noble friend would like to see progress made to update the Northern Ireland law and I understand that position. There are certainly parts of the Defamation Act 2013 that could usefully be extended to Northern Ireland. However, this Act removed the presumption of trial by jury for libel actions. This may of course shorten and reduce the cost of libel actions.

It is of note that the 2017 Review of Civil and Family Justice in Northern Ireland by Lord Justice Gillen noted the extremely important function of the jury in defamation cases in the context of the Northern Ireland jurisdiction, in particular its role in finding whether the plaintiff has been defamed. As the Gillen review notes, juries in Northern Ireland have been traditionally considered the best fact-finder to judge what words or statements mean in the local context with its unique history, and whether they are considered defamatory in any case. These are matters that involve justice and freedoms, and on which the particular jurisdiction is important. The devolved nature of defamation law in Scotland is reflected in the fact that only a very limited number of provisions in the Defamation Act 2013 have been extended to Scotland, in particular around statements or reports which arise in the scientific or academic field.

Similarly, defamation law is a devolved matter for Northern Ireland; therefore, simply extending the Defamation Act 2013 to Northern Ireland is not appropriate. Further, I understand that, prior to the passage of the Defamation Act, the views of the Northern Ireland Executive were sought as to whether they wished to make a legislative consent Motion to provide for the Act to apply in Northern Ireland, but they declined to do so. Decisions to reform the law should be taken by a restored Northern Ireland Executive. This will allow the unique Northern Ireland context to be taken into account in any reforms. I regret that I am not able to help my noble friend but I respectfully request that he withdraw this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie]

I support the noble Baroness’s amendment. We have discussed this subject several times, and we all recognise that recommendations are in place. The Minister will tell us that things have been added to them, which has complicated the settlement. We are talking about abuse going back to 1922—nearly 100 years ago—and continuing until as late as 1995.

Let us be clear: these abuses have not been confined to Northern Ireland. In the Republic, in Scotland, in England and in the Channel Islands abuses have been unearthed, and Sir Anthony Hart produced a very comprehensive report. When we read about the scale of the abuse it leaves us feeling very angry that people who should have been responsible were perpetrating those acts of abuse. I happened to read a novel last year by Christina McKenna called The Misremembered Man. It is a total fiction, but it is based entirely on the kind of abuse that young children experienced in Northern Ireland and makes a lively dramatic impact, as perhaps a stark factual report does not.

I say to the Minister: people have waited an awfully long time. Many have died and many have suffered. There has been a recommendation, and there are clearly additional things. If he can say something about the timescale on which he feels we can get to a point when action can be taken, the Committee will be very appreciative.

[Lord Empey]

My Lords, this issue has been raised many times. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, may have deprived the House of 12 minutes of her prepared speech, but the parties in Belfast could still surprise us. It has perhaps been a depressing day listening to these debates, but there is always hope. I hope that they will surprise us and start to deal with this matter themselves. However, I have to say to the Minister that this is a bit like the carrot in front of the donkey: the closer we seem to get the more it keeps moving away, and it never gets to the point when something actually happens. I accept that the fact that there is money involved has its own implications, but I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us that this will happen, and happen on a realistic timescale. Sadly, Sir Anthony did not live to see this, but it would be a tribute to him if it could be introduced as soon as possible.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

My Lords, I think we can make some progress this evening. I thank the noble Baroness for tabling her amendment. There is urgency. The last time the matter was discussed I said that the Government stood ready to move this through Westminster with a degree of urgency. The issue now, of course, is that Sir Anthony Hart’s recommendations have been considered by the parties, which have reached a consensus—but it differs from the original proposals in the Hart recommendations, so there needs to be some redrafting. We anticipate the redraft coming towards the Government in the next couple of weeks.

The route that the noble Baroness has chosen is one that might introduce a delay, and I do not think we need to do that. If she is willing, I will commit, in the absence of a sitting Assembly, to the Government introducing primary legislation on historical institutional abuse before the end of the year—which I believe would satisfy her requirements. On that basis, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.